Interview with Paul Conway

We also sold Stevie Mallan, Matty Pearson & Christoph Knasmullner in the Summer, with George Moncur also leaving in January.

 

that's ok, thanks for what you have put. It will all come out in the wash no doubt, just doesnt seem like things are adding up with the info we have.

 

I'm just being cantankerous & pedantic, Ben, old mate!

 

Steady on, old bean. Preparing that works presentation has made you a bit giddy!

 

So you via Gally post are completely debunking James Crynes Barnsley Chronicle statement put out by his lawyers

You're saying that statement was a deliberate lie
Done presumably to mislead the Barnsley fans and people.

I can only presume you have talked to him personally and he has confirmed this as this has serious consequences ethier for the Crynes or the trust.

He says in that statement the money cannot be paid out of the clubs money.
Payment of the money out of the clubs money would mean he's literally paying himself out with his own money.
which would be bordering on the bizarre and have serious ? consequences for the ongoing future and future finances of the club.

So he signed a contract agreeing to sell the club for 6 million of new money plus payments from the clubs ongoing finances of 3.5 million ( negotiated down from 6) to be made over the next five years in 750 thousand instalments.

Or he sold the club for 6 million then agreed to lower that to 3.5 million as promotion to the league above was not guaranteed so took the safe option of 3.5 million of his own money !!


He also said that it had nothing to do with the ground or covid issues
It preceded that and they had not made any payments at all from the very start of the signed deal at all until the 750thou payment years later.

Conway twists everything to his favour.
He says and maintains they agreed on the deal for the money to paid back in instalments

But does he ever say the Crynes agreed that the money was to be paid back using the clubs ongoing finances ?

I don't think he has hence the twisting of the truth

interesting i would expect the media especially the chronicle to pull him up on this issue and contact him about this and for him to confirm this or not
As it sounds frankly very odd.

 

Note 24 in the last accounts makes it clear that the debt was a debt of BFC Investment Company Ltd to Oakwell Holdings Ltd, that is, the debts was nothing to do with Barnsley FC Ltd. Barnsley FC Ltd paid that debt on behalf of BFC Investment Company Ltd and because it was nothing to do with Barnsley Fc Ltd, it had to be written off against profits. It was nothing to do with Barnsley FC Ltd because Patrick Cryne wrote off the whole of the sum that was owed to him when he sold the company. He may have made an agreement with the new owners that in the event the club was promoted back to the Championship, that part of that debt would become repayable, but that agreement was nothing to do with Barnsley FC Ltd. It was between BFC Investment Company Ltd and Oakwell Holdings Ltd. If subsequently, there was an agreement that Barnsley FC Ltd would make the first payment of £750K, then this would have been agreed in a board meeting and that agreement would have been minuted, that is, it would have been recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

I have to say that I do not believe Mr Conway's account of what happened. It simply does not ring true. Therefore, if he is to convince me that his account of the situation is true, he would have to show me the relevant minute, and the Cryne family would have to corroborate his account of what happened.

 

Has that happened though, if @Gally is so certain?

 

You would have to ask @Gally what he has seen, and who he has talked to. I am commenting without having discussed it with anyone.

 

The only way I'd accept that the renegotiated £3.5m is valid to be paid from Barnsley Football Club Limited (£750k paid to date as far as we know) is if the Cryne family made it publicly known that was the case.

I currently find that a very unlikely event given the BFC financial accounts state that the payment was on behalf of the HK company and subsequently written off, and as DD rightly references, flies completely in the face of the Cryne statement outlining the legal case and disagreeing with the "version" put out by Conway through BFC media.

Cryne family explain £2.75m legal case against Barnsley FC owners | Barnsley Chronicle

Rereading that article, two interesting points I'd not really noted (or remembered). That during covid, the Crynes hadn't requested rental payments on Oakwell. And that James Cryne hadn't taken a salary. It may not be for the whole accounting year due to be published anytime now, but it should reduce costs slightly in those accounts, and may even nod towards how much he takes from the club in salary in the directors emoluments note. The balance between the difference in the comparative year and the highest paid director may leave a significant balance that points towards other monies being removed by directors, which would be contrary to claims made in the media by the owners.

 

Meanwhile, Conway is aware of the owners unpopularity and have invested more this season than last......

https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...of-unpopularity-but-have-upped-investment-ceo

 

I'm assuming you can't go into more specific detail of how you've formed your opinion on point 1, but I'll ask just in case you can be.

The source of the funds is from BFC Limited. The Cryne statement on 19th August 2020 said, "The club is not liable to pay the deferred element of the purchase price, it is the Hong Kong company which owes the money.”

The first payment was due, and was paid, but the Crynes publicly stated it was from the wrong source. Someone legally minded mentioned that 2 cases were opened and had been merged. Though we don't know more as its not been made official, it wouldn't be a great leap to estimate those cases were non payment and wrongly made payment.

It seems very strange for the Crynes to allegedly now be content to accept this money from the source they publicly said they weren't happy with. The only source that can override the statement from august 2020 are the Crynes. Any other source from within the club can't possibly have precedence over the Cyrnes August statement, given it is the Crynes taking the action through oakwell holdings.

Can I also ask... "investigations"? That sounds very official, and may just be a word used slightly out of context. Are the Trust investigating activities at Oakwell? Or are these views formed from general questions from interviews and a few comments with key people behind the scenes?

 

That article points out that the football club aren't liable for the payments, but that doesn't mean that Conway's claim about the source of funds can't be true either. I've not seen anything from the Crynes specifically on the 750k that came out of the club in the 19/20 accounts.

 

By default, the article covers the £750k, give that the renegotiated deferral was £3.5m.

I don't see how Conways repeated assertions and the Crynes stating the monies should be from the HK vehicle can sit together.